Category Archives: Enablement

Amgen’s petition for en banc hearing regarding enablement of anti-PCSK9 antibody claims denied

Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, et al. Docket No. 2020-1074 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1074.OPINION.2-11-2021_1731739.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, HUGHES February 11, 2021 (updated June 21, 2021) Update (June 21, 2021):  Amgen’s petition for rehearing en banc was denied.  Judges Lourie, Prost and Hughes authored an opinion … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement | Leave a comment

PacBio’s claims not enabled for “full scope of nucleic acids covered”; Oxford’s COVID-related statements not prejudicial

Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Techs., Inc. Docket No. 2020-2155, -2156 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-2155.OPINION.5-11-2021_1776046.pdf) LOURIE, TARANTO, STOLL May 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  Lack of enablement finding affirmed (e.g., “relevant artisans did not know how to perform nanopore sequencing for … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement | Leave a comment

Obviousness conclusion reversed as prior art was not enabled for claimed invention

Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. General Electric Co. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1755 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1755.OPINION.4-16-2021_1764430.pdf) LOURIE, CHEN, HUGHES April 16, 2021 Brief Summary:  IPR obviousness decision reversed as prior art was not enabled. Summary:  Raytheon appealed IPR final written decision (FWD) … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

FC panel affirms DC claim construction, enablement, damages, and no willfulness findings

Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc. et al. and Nektar Therapeutics Docket No. 2019-2418, 2020-1017 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2418.OPINION.3-1-2021_1740684.pdf) NEWMAN, LINN, STOLL March 1, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC claim construction, enablement, damages, and no willfulness findings affirmed. Summary:  Baxalta/Nektar (“B/N”) appealed DC denial … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Enablement, Royalties, Willfullness | Leave a comment

DC lack of enablement of Amgen’s anti-PCSK9 antibody claims affirmed

Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, et al. Docket No. 2020-1074 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1074.OPINION.2-11-2021_1731739.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, HUGHES February 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC lack of enablement of Amgen’s anti-PCSK9 antibody claims affirmed. Summary:  Amgen appealed DC grant of JMOL for lack of enablement of … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement | Leave a comment

Injunction, damages, infringement and invalidity decisions regarding Illumina’s fetal testing patents affirmed

Verinata Health, Inc., Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Mol. Sys., Inc. Docket No. 22018-2198, -2303, -2305, -2306, -2317 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES April 24, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: DC denial of injunction and damages, as well as its refusal … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Doctrine of equivalents, Enablement, Infringement, Software | Leave a comment

HCV method of treatment claims invalid for lack of enablement and written description

Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. v. Gilead Sciences Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-1691 PROST, NEWMAN, WALLACH October 30, 2019 Brief Summary: DC grant of JMOL to Gilead finding HCV treatment patent invalid for enabled affirmed; FC panel also finds lack of … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Enablement, Uncategorized, Written description | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit affirms DC’s grant of SJ, finding Enzo’s claims invalid for lack of enablement

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al. (Becton Dickinson (BD), GeneOhm, Aboott) Docket Nos. 2017-2498, -2499, -2545, -2546 (public opinion: July 25, 2019) Brief Summary:  DC grant of SJ for invalidity of Enzo’s claims for lack … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC

PGR2018-00001 (US 9,539,268 B2) Final Written Decision April 29, 2019 Brief summary: GG found to have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Antecip’s claims related to zoledronic acid and methods for using the same to treat arthritis are … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Grünenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC

PGR2018-00001 (US 9,539,268 B2) Final Written Decision April 29, 2019 Brief summary: GG found to have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Antecip’s claims related to zoledronic acid and methods for using the same to treat arthritis are … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment